One of the things Far Left Crazy has been trying to do for the last hundred years is wipe out the family and replace it with God knows what. The Soviet Union has fallen, and Red China is more fascist than communist–but American commies are still on board the program.

We are never more than one election away from them taking over for good.

Bad enough I have to write about this stuff; I’m not going to illustrate it, too! Here, instead, is a nice picture of a red eft.

I’ve held off on writing about the so-called “Equality Act,” which House Democrats passed on Friday while normal people were coming home from work, because I was (and still am, mostly) convinced it was a stunt. The Democrats were using it to stir up their Far Left Crazy base, while conservatives took advantage of it to scare people into donating more money to their cause.

I expect this abomination to die in the Senate. And if not, President Trump has already said he wouldn’t sign it.

This mischief, disguised as a “law,” would be more aptly titled “the Homosexual Supremacy Act.” It would cripple all opposition, even religious opposition grounded in the First Amendment, to the assorted lifestyle innovations so enthusiastically promoted by Democrats. There’s no way we could have both this and freedom of religion, freedom of speech. One or the other would have to go. Guess which one the Democrat Party would like to see erased.

So let’s see what happens in the Senate.

If they fail to stop it there–well, GOP senators, you’re going to be wiped out in the primaries.

This is what’ll happen if you don’t give the government fantastic new powers to control your lives!

Far Left Crazy will never drop the ball on “Climate Change.” It’s their ticket to ride, the blanket excuse for extending the strangling grasp of government in every direction. And the colleges and universities help them do it. Like so:

There’s a city ordinance in San Diego, California–yes, even in California–that says you can’t set up a “marijuana facility” within 1,000 feet of a school, a playground, or a church. So along comes a bunch of potsters setting up their “facility” practically next door to a church–and demanding that the church should move, it has no right to be there. And the city immediately sprang in to side with the potsters (https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/marijuana-firm-attacks-church-loses-badly/).

We are happy to report that the church’s subsequent lawsuit against the city has been settled with the city totally capitulating, a complete victory for the church. The city will pay all the legal fees and amend its ordinances so that this kind of thing will be less likely to occur in the future.

The potsters falsely claimed the church was “in a flood zone” when it wasn’t, then tried to buy the church, and then got the city to go along with their scheme to build a “marijuana facility” practically next door to the church. (Sorry, but I’m not sure what kind of “facility” it was going to be. It didn’t get built, so probably it doesn’t matter.)

The city settled out of court by way of an unconditional surrender. What were they afraid the judge was going to do, if the case came to trial? Maybe they were looking down the barrel of punitive damages like they never imagined.

Is it just me–or is this campaign to legalize pot coming down from somewhere at the top and has an evil intent?

We got a communication yesterday, unsolicited, from an alleged adult who says he’s “sick of rich old white men” running for president. We must note that he himself is a rich old white man.

Is it possible there are registered voters out there who really, truly think that skin color, sex, and age are important things to be considered, in choosing a president? I mean, does this guy even understand what a president is, and does? That “president” is a job–and that to do it well benefits the whole world, but to do it poorly can bring to large numbers of people hardship, frustration, loss, and even wounds and death.

As for being “rich,” let’s see… hmm… when was the last time an indigent was elected to high public office in America? [Riffles through history] Ooh-ooh–never! No poor homeless person has ever been elected to anything!

What we are hearing from, here, is a silly old ass who seems to think being “a woman of color” or something, or at least young and poverty-stricken, would by some weird alchemy make you a good president. It is a shame that he can vote. It can’t be a good thing to let utter chowderheads vote.

A spokesman from the National Endowment for Democracy told Congress that China has been buying American radio stations and other media outlets. Meanwhile, because China is a huge chunk of the global film market, and the Chinese government is assertive about getting what it wants, Hollywood tailors or edits the content of American-made movies to please the Chinese government. And finally, China has been actively trying to extend its influence throughout America’s universities–most often by intimidating Chinese students attending college in America.

Communist China sort of…exports tyranny. Why not? They have a lot of friends in America. “Progressives” admire China’s authoritarian way of doing things. Euro-dorks admire China’s way of doing things. Hey, voter fraud takes effort–so much neater if the peasants couldn’t vote at all. That way you avoid embarrassing surprises, like Hillary not being elected president.

So… if TV and movie content has seemed a little red around the edges lately… that’s probably because it is.

But no more so than our public schools and colleges. And I’m surprised China would ever have to pay for what American liberals are giving them for free.

I have to review a book for Chalcedon, Dark Agenda by David Horowitz, and I’m feeling overwhelmed by the weight and seriousness of his argument, and the mountain of evidence he cites to support it. This blog post is an effort to warm up for the challenge.

Usually when I read a book to review, I mark striking passages with a pen and dog-ear the pages that I want to cite. I think I’ve dog-eared every other page in here. Well, that won’t do. Think, think, think…

Horowitz was raised by Far Left parents and grew up to become an activist for their movement in the 1960s. When he talks about the revolutionary Left, he knows what he’s talking about. That’s why they ban him from the social(ist) media. He has left his radical past behind and come over to our side.

The book’s subtitle is “The War to Destroy Christian America.” The fact that “war” is the most appropriate word he could have used is what’s so overwhelming about it. The Far Left literally means to destroy and erase everything about America that makes it America.

Horowitz, who is Jewish, believes that Christian America is one of the best things that ever happened to the human race, and that it deserves to be defended and preserved.

The bad guys aren’t kidding, folks. Radicalism is their religion, and they are waging a jihad against Christianity, which they hate with a passion that, for many of them, crosses the line into the psychotic. No debate, no compromise, no shared humanity: their goal is to wipe out every vestige of Christian America and create an authoritarian, atheistic hell-hole with themselves in charge.

No, I’m not exaggerating. Neither is David Horowitz. This book was shocking even to me.

The ancient Chinese sage, Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War, laconically described a certain kind of military situation in which strategy and tactical finesse don’t matter.

“On death ground, fight.”

Either Christian America wins, or Christian America dies. God give us strength: and may God fight for us.

“A country in which freedom of speech effectively did not exist, even though it remained a technical right, would not be America. A government that allowed such a thing would have no right to exist.”

Sooner or later someone is going to remember that the Internet itself, and the social media, too, would not have come into existence without major developmental efforts funded by the American taxpayer–by you and me. Google and Facebook have taken their share of public money while claiming all the rights and privileges of private ownership. But in fact they are already, and have been all along, quasi-public agencies: and, as such, obligated to respect the First Amendment.

They mustn’t be allowed to restrict speech only to liberals, Democrats, and Far Left Crazy (you will overlook the tautology).

There’s a lot of talk suddenly, all throughout the Western world, of lowering the voting age. But I think we should raise it.

I’m not one of these people who moans about not enough people voting. I think too many people vote–way too many. (And some of them too often, too–but that’s another issue.) Public policy is serious business, demanding sober thought. I realize that sentence has just launched me, as from a catapult, out of the mainstream. But these days the mainstream is almost always the wrong place to be.

A reason often given for allowing 16-year-olds to vote is to get ’em into the voting booth in a hurry so they can vote to shore up the Climate Change mob. The fact that it’s so easy to recruit teens to this sham cause is a very strong argument for not letting them vote, not ever.

Here’s the truth. If you’ve only been on this earth for 16 years, no matter what your natural gifts and talents, you simply haven’t been here long enough to acquire the amount of knowledge and experience it takes to be a responsible voter. It doesn’t occur to you, for instance, that our glorious leaders who scare us with tales of rising sea levels are out there buying beachfront palaces–which they do because they know the sea levels are going nowhere, and they don’t themselves believe a single word of the fraud they’re selling us. Ditto their private jets, their limousines, their lavish banquets at Davos. They don’t believe a word of it.

Nor do teens have the experience to pick up on certain things that, to older folks, stick out like sore thumbs: like when a left-wing UN “expert” lets it slip that only communism or socialism can **Save The Planet!** from global warming. Even better, communism with a world government behind it! That sets off our radar. But teens haven’t yet lived long enough to have that equipment.

Even without lowering the voting age, far too many alleged adults base their votes on misinformation (which they were either too lazy or too busy to check up on), lies told to them by politicians and nooze media, irrational passions and personal prejudices, profoundly silly “reasons” (like identity politics), misdirected anger, or the kind of pure whimsy, totally un-serious and irresponsible, that inspires votes for hopeless third-party candidates.

Raising the voting age to 50 would be a good start, although it wouldn’t solve the problem of foolish people casting foolish votes. So we ought to start talking sense about what kind of restrictions ought to be put on voting, and see if we can find ones that work.